U.S. Military Assets - August 30, 2013

Analysts say there are many precedents for presidents to act without Congress, most recently in Libya.

Wells Bennett of the Brookings Institution said, “But in a case like this, where there is no clear threat to say, U.S. interests, or U.S. people, it is a little more difficult to fit a unilateral presidential action in Syria in the line with some of those past other historical episodes where presidents have acted alone.”

Opponents of unilateral action are citing the 1973 War Powers resolution, passed to limit executive power after the Vietnam War.

“The idea is that if the president uses force abroad, deploys the United States Armed Forces into what is called hostilities under the law, that it triggers a time-clock that he has obviously to report on what he has done, but also, after a certain passage of that clock, bring the people back,” said Bennett.

Some lawmakers, such as Republican Senator John McCain, agree with the president that action must be taken - in response to alleged chemical attacks by the Syrian government.

For those who demand a voice for Congress, their only recourse may be a later vote to defund any potential military operations in Syria.